Dismissed

Mr R S Shakthi Kumar v. T Nirmalamma

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2022CRL.P/757/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC regarding a dishonoured cheque under Section 138 NI Act, the petitioner contended the chit fund company was not joined as a party. The High Court held the cheque was personal and proceedings continued against the accused, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking set aside of order of cognizance is dismissed.

Mr R S Shakthi Kumar Vs T Nirmalamma — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.757 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MR. R. S. SHAKTHI KUMAR S/O SANJEEVAPPA AGED 54 YEARS, CHIT FUND BUSINESS AND FINANCIER SRI SAISHAKTHI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO.726, 2^ND FLOOR, DR. MODI HOSPITAL ROAD, OPP: NEW SHANTHISAGARA HOTEL BENGALURU – 560 086

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

[BY SRI. RISHI PAL SINGH VARMA, ADV.]

¶11

AND

¶12

T. NIRMALAMMA W/O M. MANJANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, ‘SRI MANJUNATHA NILAYA’ K. H. B. COLONY MAIN ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM CHITRADURGA

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

[BY SRI.B.S. MURALI, ADV.]

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE TAKEN UNDER COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT UNDER SEC.200 OF CRPC ALONG FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF NI ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED DATED 24.06.2019 IN C.C.NO.594/2019 (P.C.R.NO.74/2019) BEFORE IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT AT CHITRADURGA AND ETC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.594/2019, registered for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶19

Heard Sri. Rishi Pal Singh Varma, learned

¶20

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.S. Murali, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶21

The transaction between the

¶22

complainant/respondent and the petitioner/accused, which allegedly was in furtherance of certain chit fund

¶23

¶24

business. The accused issued a cheque on 10.12.2018.

¶25

That having been dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, the respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The proceedings have gone on and both the parties to the lis submit that the trial is at the stage of conclusion.

¶26

At this juncture, the petitioner has knocked

¶27

the doors of this Court in the subject petition, on the score that the Company is not made a party, despite the instrument being issued for the purpose of re-payment of chit fund amount.

¶28

A perusal at the instrument, which is

¶29

appended to the petition as Annexure-E bears the signature of the accused alone, for an amount of Rs.3,15,000/-. If it were to be issued in the name of the company, the name or seal of the company ought to have been affixed on the cheque. As a personal cheque

¶30

¶31

is issued by the accused and the same having been dishonoured, the proceedings are continued before the Competent Court.

¶32

Since there is no indication that it is issued on behalf of a particular chit fund company, the contention that the company is not made a party to the proceedings would not be of any avail to the petitioner.

¶33

All other submissions that are sought to be

¶34

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner would be at the realm of evidence, trial or the further proceedings

¶35

before the Competent Court.

¶36

Finding no merit, the criminal petition stands

¶37

dismissed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Mr R S Shakthi Kumar v. T Nirmalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr R S Shakthi Kumar v. T Nirmalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Ajmathulla Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Naifulla Hussaini Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Rajendra Alias Paul Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs S C Jayanna

Sharath Kumar S Vs State of Karnataka

Pooja H P Vs the State of Karnataka